23 May 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe whole stimulus thing is controversial. Many people think it only benefits the interests of certain people while not increasing the number of posts or threads or indeed the number of active posters.
Perhaps you can provide a stimulus?
Originally posted by FMFYou can't spend your way to a recovery. The only answer is to cut the taxes (i.e., the taxing tedium of the same tired debates that get re-hashed over and over and over again).
The whole stimulus thing is controversial. Many people think it only benefits the interests of certain people while not increasing the number of posts or threads or indeed the number of active posters.
23 May 12
Originally posted by sh76How about if a small group decides what the best topics for us are, and how many posts we should all write? Wouldn't this be fairer than people just posting in an unequal way. Shouldn't there be a mechanism to shield those of us who are less prolific when the forum is struggling?
You can't spend your way to a recovery. The only answer is to cut the taxes (i.e., the taxing tedium of the same tired debates that get re-hashed over and over and over again).
23 May 12
Originally posted by FMFAh, post count envy rears its ugly head again.
How about if a small group decides what the best topics for us are, and how many posts we should all write? Wouldn't this be fairer than people just posting in an unequal way. Shouldn't there be a mechanism to shield those of us who are less prolific when the forum is struggling?
23 May 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNot envy. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Although equality of outcome might be an idea; previous attempts haven't been true Scotsmen. If everything was a bit more standardized wouldn't it foster forum spirit? Similar efforts required from all, raises all boats, surely?
Ah, post count envy rears its ugly head again.
23 May 12
Originally posted by FMFIt wouldn't work. Forum administrators can never be as efficient as individual posters.
Not envy. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Although equality of outcome might be an idea; previous attempts haven't been true Scotsmen. If everything was a bit more standardized wouldn't it foster forum spirit? Similar efforts required from all, raises all boats, surely?
23 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWe could get some people with university education in. They could decide for us, I reckon. People who can see beyond the whole "individual poster" thing.
It wouldn't work. Forum administrators can never be as efficient as individual posters.
23 May 12
Originally posted by SleepyguyEveryone has a basic human right to read a certain minimum level of posts. Therefore, prolific posters are required to keep their post count high to avoid infringing on this basic human right.
Perhaps the admins should just mandate a minimum number of posts per RHP member. Those not meeting the quota have to pay more. Problem solved.
23 May 12
Originally posted by SleepyguyYes, that would at least give us stuff to read and create pressure on others to contribute. People with impairments, however, should be allowed to just read. We could form a group to decide on our behalf what "impairments" means.
Perhaps the admins should just mandate a minimum number of posts per RHP member. Those not meeting the quota have to pay more. Problem solved.
23 May 12
Originally posted by sh76Yes. They owe it to the system that provided them such wonderful posting opportunities.
Everyone has a basic human right to read a certain minimum level of posts. Therefore, prolific posters are required to keep their post count high to avoid infringing on this basic human right.
23 May 12
Originally posted by sh76Well, prolific posters could be required to send some of their posts to others so that they could post them. Of course there would be a mechanism so that this would be done fairly.
...prolific posters are required to keep their post count high to avoid infringing on this basic human right.